Krell v Henry

Queen Victoria (1819 - 1901) had just died in 1901 after reigning for over 60 years (1837 – 1901) since the age of 18!

After 1 year of mourning, arrangements were made for the coronation of Edward VII (1841 – 1910) in his 60s.

*Paul Krell = "Krell" = plaintiff = owner of a suite of rooms at 56A Pall Mall overlooking the coronation parades for Edward VII.

*Krell lent out his rooms for £75 (approximately $20,500.00 in today's US dollars) for the 2 nights.

*Mr. Henry = "Henry" = defendant = renter for the 2 nights

*Krell & Henry made a contract with Henry making a down payment.

*All of a sudden, the coronation parade had to be re-scheduled because the king needed a surgery.

Krell sued for the rest of the money because the contract didn't expressly require the rent times to coincide with the coronation parades.

The trial court ruled that the occurrence of the coronation procession was an implied condition of the contract.

Krell lost.

Does the postponement of an event--forming the implied subject matter of a contract--render the contract un-enforceable?

There was offer, acceptance, & consideration. A contract formed, & it may be enforceable. However, the whole purpose of the contract for was Henry to view the procession.

The contract wasn't simply for the rooms to be rented. The purpose of the contract was to view the coronation of Edward VII live in person. Once the rent was postponed, then the contract was frustrated on the rent dates. Therefore, each party should be released from their obligations.

Affirmed

The 3 justices deciding this case cited Taylor v. Caldwell (1863).

The implied condition fails ==> frustration of purpose ==> Contract is un-enforceable

• Frustration of purpose
• This case is also called a "coronation case"